Dear Senator Malcolm Roberts, Catherine Fox, AFCA, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Services Australia, Queensland Police, Dodo, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, OAIC, NDIA and all copied oversight authorities,
RE: THE CUMULATIVE REMOVAL OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES FROM A DISABILITY SUPPORT PENSION RECIPIENT — FORMAL EVIDENCE PRESERVATION, CHRONOLOGY RECONCILIATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY REQUEST
I am issuing this correspondence as a formal consolidation of my historical complaints, banking disputes, government records, Freedom of Information disclosures and documented disability-related hardship.
This is not a request for sympathy.
It is a request for the original records, decisions, legal authorities and explanations that should already exist within the institutions responsible.
My central concern is that I experienced the loss or restriction of multiple essential services during potentially overlapping periods: banking access, Disability Support Pension payments, telecommunications and continuity of medical treatment.
Each institution has treated its involvement as a separate matter. The cumulative effect has not, to my knowledge, been adequately reconciled.
I am asking every recipient to examine the chronology rather than respond only with another generic acknowledgement.
1. Bendigo Bank — The financial exclusion
My complaints concern the Devonport branch, account closure, cancellation or restriction of banking access, access to personal records, hardship considerations and the handling of my Disability Support Pension income.
On 17 October 2026, I submitted a formal complaint and privacy access request.
On 30–31 October, I escalated demands for the original account-closure records, internal correspondence, notice history and evidence supplied to AFCA.
On 4 November, Bendigo Bank Customer Care, through Tamara, advised that relevant information had been supplied to AFCA and that the bank would continue to be guided by AFCA.
I now require an itemised reconciliation of what the bank provided to AFCA against what has actually been disclosed to me.
Please identify:
- Every affected account and the exact date of restriction, closure or card cancellation.
- The recorded reason for each decision and the authority relied upon.
- The original notices, delivery records and communication logs.
- Any account balances, transfers, withheld funds, garnishments or restrictions affecting access to pension income.
- Whether my disability, financial hardship and access to essential services were considered.
- The records provided to AFCA, including their dates and any withheld material.
- Any internal risk classification materially relied upon, subject to applicable disclosure law.
A financial institution's ability to close an account does not eliminate the need to account for its decision-making and applicable obligations.
2. AFCA — What happened to the evidence?
The existing correspondence identifies:
AFCA 12-25-282964
AFCA 13-26-35023
AFCA 10-26-35380
AFCA 10-26-35381
I acknowledge that the correspondence concerning the last two references stated that insufficient information had been provided to lodge complaints.
That distinction must be preserved.
My escalation of 30–31 October raised concerns about deleted or missing correspondence, disclosure of evidence, Bendigo Bank's account closure and complaint handling.
Catherine Fox and AFCA's Service Complaints team were included in the escalation.
I request a written register identifying the status of each reference, the financial firm concerned, the case officer, material received, decisions issued and any outstanding review rights.
I also request confirmation of whether Bendigo Bank's submissions have been disclosed to me and whether I have had a fair opportunity to respond.
An automated acknowledgement is not a substantive investigation. A reference number is not a determination.
I am asking AFCA to distinguish these stages clearly.
3. Services Australia — The pension and the restrictions
Services Australia FOI LEX 93986 provides a documentary basis for examining my disputes concerning Disability Support Pension interruption, Rent Assistance, communication restrictions and administrative review.
The disclosed records include an April 2025 Managed Service Plan referral associated with the FOI team and a restriction-change letter dated 24 April 2025.
The records also document my contemporaneous complaints about interrupted payments, financial hardship and medication-related consequences.
I request:
- The complete DSP and Rent Assistance payment history for the disputed periods.
- Original suspension, cancellation, restoration and debt decisions.
- Payment release dates, bank destination records and rejected or returned payments.
- Original restriction notices, internal referral records and delegated approvals.
- Evidence of dispatch and delivery of relevant notices.
- Review decisions, compensation assessments and corrections made to my record.
The banking chronology and the payment chronology must be compared.
If the bank restricted access while pension payments were interrupted, the combined practical consequences need to be understood—even if the decisions were legally and administratively independent.
4. APM Employment Services — Adverse compliance records
My employment-services history includes disputed compliance events dated 15 September 2023 and 15 January 2024, subsequently reversed.
The relevant DEWR complaint reference is CAS-2634696-N6Q0V3.
I request the original compliance reports, reasons for reversal, payment consequences, internal communications and evidence that corrections were reflected in relevant systems.
A reversed compliance decision should not be treated as though its earlier consequences never existed.
5. Dodo — Communications as an essential service
My complaints concerning Dodo involve telecommunications disconnection, disputed notification and the consequences of losing communications access.
Telecommunications is not merely a convenience when a person relies on remote banking, electronic authentication, government contact centres, medical appointments and complaint correspondence.
I request the original termination dates, account notes, notices, billing history, complaint decisions and records of any restoration or refusal.
The dates must be compared with the banking and pension events.
I ask the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to identify the proper complaint pathway and any existing matter rather than assume that being copied into correspondence automatically commenced an investigation.
6. Queensland Police — Original incident records
My Services Australia records document that I reported an incident involving police use of a Taser.
I have separately pursued Queensland Police right-to-information records.
I request reconciliation of the incident details, original police reports, body-worn camera material, use-of-force records, any related enforcement decisions and the applicable review mechanisms.
I am not presenting the Services Australia note as independent proof of police misconduct. It is evidence that I reported the incident at the time.
The original police material is required to establish what occurred.
7. Medical continuity and disability-related vulnerability
My complaints also concern interruptions to psychiatric treatment and medication.
These matters must be examined against the financial and communications chronology because access to medication and medical care may depend on money, transport and reliable communications.
Michael Lewis's occupational therapy report dated 23 June 2026 documents substantial functional support needs.
I ask the relevant institutions to explain how disability-related circumstances and reasonable adjustments were considered when decisions affected essential services.
Detailed clinical records should be requested and reviewed through appropriate secure channels.
8. The cross-agency question
I am not asking anyone to accept an unproven theory that these institutions acted together.
I am asking a more rigorous question:
Did separate administrative decisions, made during overlapping periods, combine to remove essential financial, communication and medical safeguards from a person receiving disability support?
And, if so, did any institution recognise or respond to that cumulative harm?
The documentary investigation must distinguish:
1. Events independently established by original records.
2. Events recorded as my contemporaneous complaints.
3. Decisions subsequently reversed or corrected.
4. Financial, medical and housing consequences supported by evidence.
5. Allegations requiring further independent investigation.
6. Any actual information-sharing or administrative dependency between organisations.
This is the distinction between a complaint narrative and an auditable evidence dossier.
9. Formal requests to every recipient
I request that each organisation, within its own jurisdiction:
First: Preserve relevant original correspondence, decisions, attachments, transaction records and system histories in accordance with applicable retention obligations.
Second: Identify the precise dates of adverse decisions and subsequent reversals.
Third: Confirm the documents relied upon, the responsible officers or teams and the authority for each decision.
Fourth: Identify the complaints already lodged, their present status and the substantive responses issued.
Fifth: Confirm what relevant information was disclosed to other organisations, where legally disclosable.
Sixth: Explain any missing, corrected, inaccessible or disputed correspondence.
Seventh: Identify the appropriate remedy, review mechanism or compensation pathway where an error or loss is established.
Eighth: Provide an accountable written response rather than simply opening another duplicate complaint.
10. Parliamentary scrutiny and the public record
Senator Roberts, my previous correspondence has raised concerns about disability income, administrative restrictions and access to essential services.
I request that your office consider the combined documentary record and whether the matters warrant referral for further parliamentary or independent scrutiny.
My Truth Sequences archive is intended to preserve the chronology, original correspondence and unresolved questions.
Publication will distinguish allegations from established facts and will be corrected if further primary evidence changes the findings.
The central accountability question is this:
When a disability pension recipient loses access to banking, experiences interrupted income support, encounters telecommunications difficulties and reports disruption to medical treatment, who is responsible for examining the combined consequences?
I ask the recipients to answer that question through evidence, not institutional boundaries.
Please acknowledge this notice, identify existing case references and provide a substantive response addressing the matters within your responsibility.
Please reply to my email accounts and do not circulate confidential banking, medical or police records to the entire recipient group.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Brecelic
Truth Sequences — Cross-Agency Evidence and Accountability Archive
Warrnambool, Victoria
No Fixed Address
Documentary references: Services Australia LEX 93986; NDIA FOI 26/27-0675; AFCA 12-25-282964 and 13-26-35023; AFCA correspondence 10-26-35380 and 10-26-35381; DEWR CAS-2634696-N6Q0V3; Bendigo Bank correspondence, 17 October–4 November 2026.
